State v. Maggard

• Decision Date: 26 February 1901
• Citation: 160 Mo. 469,61 S.W. 184
• Parties: STATE v. MAGGARD.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

61 S.W. 184

160 Mo. 469

STATE v. MAGGARD.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 26, 1901.

GRAND LARCENY—GOODS IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS — THEFT AT DIFFERENT TIMES — MEASURE OF VALUE — ACTUAL WORTH — MARKET VALUE.

1. Several parties put their teams in a wagon yard over night, and one of them left his overcoat, harness, and some sacks of corn in his wagon, and another placed his personal effects in the barn loft, and the others in various places around the yard; but the property left in any one place was not worth $30. Held, that a party could not be convicted of grand larceny for stealing the property of different owners so located.

2. On a charge of grand larceny all the evidence as to the worth of the property alleged to have been stolen was as to its actual value. The defendant offered an instruction that the value of the property was not its worth to the owner, but its value in the open market. Held, that the instruction was properly modified by striking out the words "in the open market."

Appeal from circuit court, Texas county; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

Lon Maggard was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Reversed.

Clark Dooley and Orchard & Saye, for appellant. Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and Sam B. Jeffries, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BURGESS, J.

At the May term, 1900, of the circuit court of Texas county, the defendant, John W. Farrow, and Charles Smith were jointly indicted for grand larceny, which was alleged to have been committed on the 23d day of March, 1900, in that county. On the 16th day of July, 1900, being the May adjourned term of said court, on motion of defendants named in the indictment a severance was granted, and upon the 18th day of July next thereafter the defendant Maggard, having been put upon his trial, was convicted of grand larceny as charged, and his punishment fixed at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. From the judgment and sentence he appeals.

The property alleged to have been stolen consisted of overcoats, gloves, grain sacks, and various other goods and chattels belonging to five different persons, viz. E. E. Buck, Sidney Purcell, S. R. Townley, George Schoonover, Fred Brackett, and Henry Smith, all of whom lived in Texas county. The day before the goods were stolen, they went to Cabool, a station on the Kansas City, Ft. Scott & Memphis Railroad, in said county, for the purpose of getting some corn that was being shipped to them at that place. When they got there, they drove into a lot, called by one of the witnesses a "wagon yard," unhitched their teams, and remained until the following day, when they discovered that certain of their property had been stolen. Buck's property, or at least a part of it, to wit, a collar and bridle, and his sacks and corn, had been taken by him from his wagon, and piled up in a shed. Purcell's property was in his wagon, Smith's in Keithley's shed loft in the wagon yard, and the property of Brackett, Townley, and Schoonover in different places in the wagon yard. When they discovered that their property had been stolen, a warrant was secured for the arrest of defendant, John W. Farrow, and Charles Smith, who were followed a few miles in the country, overtaken, and the property found in their possession, and taken from them, and they put under arrest. After the officer had placed them under arrest, and returned to Cabool with them, the defendant escaped, and was not apprehended again for several days thereafter, when he was found at Springfield, Mo. It is...